Somewhere along the line some wannabe pundit started counting the first-person references in Obama's speeches and drawing the conclusion that his overuse of the first person proves he's a narcissist.

He may well be a narcissist, but some other form of proof is needed.

Our friends over at the Language Log blog have long ago discounted this. Here's Mark Liberman on the topic:

The core observation is that a surprisingly large number of pundits have seized on the idea that Obama's frequency of first-person-singular-pronoun use is proof of (or at least evidence for) his allegedly excessive self-involvement or "narcissism".

There are two problems with this meme. The first problem is that frequency of FPS pronoun use is not in fact correlated with the personality traits that they associate with it (and with Obama). (For discussion and references, see "What is 'I' saying?", 8/9/2009.) The second problem is that Obama's empirical frequency of FPSP use is in fact on the low side, when you compare his speeches, press conferences, interviews, etc. to similar performances by other recent presidents.

This idiocy was discredited long ago. And now that we have the Internet, it's simple to find that out. Why do morons repeat memes that make no sense?

Liberman continues:

In my opinion, there are two reasons why this is an "issue" rather than a "non-issue". The first is we have a right to expect that when major national pundits make empirical claims about matters of easily checkable fact, they should not be free to Make Stuff Up without being called on it. The fact that this particular piece of nonsense has been so widespread for so long is shocking, in my opinion. If you care about the health of public discourse in our country, this should worry you, even if you think the point about pronouns is a trivial one.

And second, whatever your political perspective, you should wonder why this president's references to himself, though fewer in number than those of his predecessors, should be so salient to pundits that they perceive them as inordinately frequent. No doubt part of the explanation is stupid herd journalism, but not every stupid idea becomes part of the Conventional Wisdom.

This time around, Barack Obama's Olympic remarks included 26 first-person-singular words out of 1130, for a rate of 2.3%. This is slightly below his typical rate for presidential press conferences, and a bit more than half the rate of the George W. Bush pressers that I measured earlier (2.3/4.49 = 51%, to be precise).

What makes a writer persist in making allegations that are so easily debunked? Beats me. It seems to me that any pundit bent on accusing Obama of overusing the first person would at the very least compare his speeches to those of prior presidents.

And it also seems to me that neither writers nor speakers should avoid the first person when its use represents the simplest way to convey a thought.

ONE MORE THING: Haen't these characters ever heard the old saying "That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger?" All of this petty and unfounded criticism of Obama just permits him to make the argument that he is unfairly persecuted. Where he's vulnerable is to criticism on his real failings - that his health-care plan will pile costs on the younger generation to subsidize care for older people. That's a criticism that could actually turn some young voters against him.